Watched "Philomena" starring Judi Dench. Based on a true story it is about an Irish woman who 50 years after her child was "sold" to an adoptive American family goes to find him. Heartbreaking at the core of it there is quite a bit of humor in it as Judi tries to fill a hole in her life and an author (Steve Coogan) tries to find a book in the process. But there is also a journey for the two characters as they find each other as friends and something about people. And some of that is not always pleasant.

Fine performances are given by the two stars and the subject is handled with a gentle wit and shows the hurt and anger found along the way. All to a very interesting end.

A smashing film about the famous 19th Century Scottish father/son golfers Old Tom and young Tommy Morris. It was film on location in St. Andrews in Fife (Chariots of Fire shot on location there, but that was supposed to pass for Kent), where the two Tommy's actually lived. Young Tommy was one of the first touring golf professionals, who was ambitious for both himself and his older, even more working class, wife. But it all ended in tragedy, she died in childbirth and he let himself go and followed not long after at 24

The Greatest Game Ever Played, which more or less concentrated on the U.S Golf Open of 1913, where unknown 20-year old amateur Frances Ouimet, assisted by his brilliant 10-year-old caddie Eddie , who saw of the challenge of probably the two best golfers in the World, at that point, from the UK Harry Vardon and Ted Ray.

Both films tackled the class issues that were around at the time, between the pro working, though famous, working class golfers and the rich business men that tried to control them

This is really a Jackie Chan movie that is only partly a Jackie Chan movie. Jackie is a little older now and while he still has some moves they are in keeping with a man his age and the character he plays.

The plot centers on his finding out who killed his daughter in a London bombing. Suspicion quickly centers on the IRA. Pierce Brosnan plays the leader of that group who is bothered by Chan’s persistence and his knowledge that he didn’t have anything to do with it. Brosnan soon begins his own quest to find out who did it and consequently save his own skin.

It is mostly a political thriller and, I thought, a quite good one. Brosnan is terrific in his role as leader of the organization and one who wants to get Chan off of his back. Chan is a special forces vet that uses his unique skills to track down those who killed his daughter.

It is not your typical Chan film and that it is tougher and more dramatic and deeper even that most of his regular fare. That is not a bad thing.

It has some violence and language but not bad for most modern films of its type.

There is no place dedicated to documentaries but here I will talk a little about "They Shall Not Grow Old." A documentary, mostly, about the British soldier in World War 1. It is a marvel of modern technology brought to the static century old film that is only known about the war.

Taken from countless hours of film provided by the Imperial War Museum and the BBC, director Peter Jackson takes the film and transforms it into a realistic (as realistic as one might imagine) and begins his diary. (No historians or commentators are present.)

The film begins in its original state in that it is what we expect as it tells the story of British men and boys as they go to sign up for the fight. Their time in training and how they are anxious but excited for the challenge ahead. It is a job to do and do it they will.

Then they come to France and that is when it all changes. The film is now in color and its speed is corrected and sound effects and "dialogue" is added and now it becomes something totally different to any WWI film one would have seen. It now becomes the thing of their preparation of everything from getting equipment to the front to using the "bathroom" to going to town on the short time off. And with what things young soldiers do when they go to town.

When the battles come the thoughts shared by survivors (mostly recorded in the early 60's) run the gamut from matter of reporting of horrible sights to the basic "just trying to get through it" necessity of surviving. (Some of this is used over magazine drawings of the day as actual close battle footage is virtually nonexistent.) When the war comes to an end and the survivors come home they are struck as though having lost a job and shabby treatment by the people they risked their lives for. There is no glory in their return just the real life day to day things to get on.

The marvel of it all comes in the sight and sound of it all. The colorization and speed correction bring a life to the film you would never know from anything else seen from the time. Random comments come from soldiers that were studied by lip readers that bring simple moments to life. Shelling and explosions are now part of that time. Even the falling of shingles from a roof are given meticulous effect in their sound.

Some reviewers have wondered how the change ca alter our perspective of the war because it is not real to what was documented at the time. Well, there is plenty enough of that to go around. Whatever the good or bad of it from that point is very effective in its final form. I think it is a different process and done with different intent than you would find in the decades old argument about colorizing old film. The effect here is deeper and more honest in its use.

Peter Jackson dedicated it to his grandfather who fought in the war and other family members who died in it.

Having seen numerous traditional documentaries on WW1 this is quite moving and, if anyone has an interest in the subject, certainly to be seen.